Note: Here we se some good points, but still, the system can be so easily manipulated with a domestic violence allegation - the universal trump card. Until this issue is faced properly by family law courts, there will not be justice.
The Times West Virginian - Family law: ‘Changing the way we think’
Overhaul made in divorce, child custody regulations
By Katie Wilson
Times West Virginian
FAIRMONT — If you’ve filed for divorce in the last six years and you have children, you’ve noticed some significant changes to West Virginia’s family law system.
Senate Bill 2003, approved by the Legislature during a special session in June 1999, started an overhaul of the state’s domestic relations system. The bill made changes in the divorce and child custody laws, changing terminology and adding steps to the process.
Marion County Family Court Judge David Born said there are some variations from county to county, but the primary components are the same. For example, required mediation sessions take care of minor issues before the couple goes back to court. Also, divorcing parents are required to attend a three-hour parenting course.
“They sound like big changes, but not really,†family law attorney Marci Carroll said. “They’re changing the way we think about things.â€
One of the biggest changes is in the terminology. For example, there are no “custody agreements†anymore. Instead, they are “parenting plans.†One parent doesn’t have “primary custody.†Instead, he or she is the “primary residential parent.â€
Born said the terminology changes are important.
“The word ‘custody’ got kind of loaded over time,†Born said. “The real objective is to have parents come up with their own agreements.â€
Vivian Hamilton, professor at West Virginia University’s College of Law, said the new terms, specifically “parenting plan,†emphasizes parents’ obligations to, instead of their rights over, their children.
“We’ve started seeing terms changing to make things gender-neutral,†Hamilton said. “It’s an attempt to mitigate the negative connotations of some terms.â€
Hamilton noted people often tack meanings of ownership to terms like “custody.†Using more neutral terms takes the punitive connotations away, she said. Taking away those negative connotations helps make the process less adversarial, Hamilton said.
“It’s reflecting we have a problem we need to work together to solve,†she said.
Carroll explained the changes in terminology are also reflecting changes in the process.
For example, parenting plans are much different than the old custody agreements. Carroll said under the old system, family law masters had two custody schedules, one for parents who lived close to each other and one for parents who lived farther away. If a couple wanted more flexibility, it was usually granted, but many couples didn’t know flexibility was an option. Also, whoever was designated the primary caretaker was given sole decision-making responsibilities.
“It used to be the primary caretaker, usually the mother, made all the decisions,†Carroll said. “Now, we assume the responsibility should be shared. It’s pretty revolutionary.
“In divorce you shouldn’t stop being a parent.â€
Carroll said the theory ties into research that indicates it’s better for the child to have both parents involved. An added benefit is that the nonresidential parent is more inclined to pay child support if he or she is invested in the child’s life, Carroll said.
This can be good news for fathers fearing they’ll be shut out of their children’s’ lives, Carroll said. Women are sometimes shocked and resentful of the new ideas, she said.
“If dads are in disagreement with something, they have avenues,†Carroll said.
Hamilton said the change in terminology can make fathers feel the playing field is more level. She noted nationally, few fathers contest custody, but in the cases in which they do, custody is usually granted. Even if either party challenges the other and the outcome is the same, if the parties feel the process is more fair, there’s no doubt the changes have had a positive effect, Hamilton said.
E-mail Katie Wilson at kwilson@timeswv.com.
2 responses so far ↓
1 wdfields // Oct 17, 2006 at 1:59 pm
“In divorce you shouldn’t stop being a parent.†While reciting such principle, suspect members of the community (perhaps addicted to the “Federal Dole”) devise and carry-out strategies already tested and proven effective to assuring such aims.
The outward appearance of Re-Form (or was that Re_Fem agendas) may appear couched upon great principals; but so too were the principals of well known non-democratic ideologies as proclaimed to previous (even as long ago as 100 years) liberation(s) for rousing the disenfranchised/overworked.
For some individuals of sworn dedication to important elements and influences to democratic governance — including the judiciary — it will and should always remain difficult to force (perhaps it should even be illegal if not criminal to actively, consciously, knowingly, recklessly or even negligently engage in imparting) upon honorable judicial officers of an important pillar of “civil” society the unnecessary and illusory tasks of “shoving/shoveling” square pegs (activist warping) through round holes/wholesomeness (constitutional understandings).
What of fundamental elements to democracy?
We can and must trust the principals of our founding and heritage.
Yet today, we readily discern the risks present when ignorant such notions. Further, we can exacerbate the “trends” to such risks by encouraging and funding direct contradictions with and for interference to individual liberty, freedom, freewill, free speech . . . notions understood to otherwise equip humanity for more efficient care to self, children, family, loved ones, communities . . . of a productive society.
Instead, we NOW turn our backs to and hearts against such notions of understood importance to productive and creative communities. In deed, we may NOW discern blatant shams of suspect and self-interest factions (even some of large business connections) allegedly willing to ignore these fundamental truths of democratic society and risk with readily available foreseeable understanding the walking upon important “better interest” needs - while in outright mockery in puppetry to “our” lovely and innocent children.
Yet the $$’s too easily placate the consciousness of so many into the unbeknownst “rationalization” of the irrational. May an almighty forgive us and grant us mercy in our embrace of human limitation, weakness and vulnerability.
Some may readily recall the theme music to “My Three Sons” from childhood of a too distant past. Today, such members may squirm with a very likely absurdity of imagining the modern day Steven Douglas advising his three sons within present context — “beware of the mores” – of those wanting More, MOre . . . MORE.
Consider further a likely modern fishing scenario of today with his three sons. Steven Douglas in a concerned inquiry, “say, where did you go Ernie . . . Ernie?”
Of a faint distant reply, echoing as but a whisper from a canyon backdrop - “Dad, over here . . near the Diseased Social Services boulder/blunder.”
Well, this may be but a mere foreshadowing to the future of
- tattoos at birth,
- radio identification tags to the skull,
- socialistic indoctrination classes (wait, this may already . . )
- sexual inoculations and narcissistic preference trainings,
- . . .
- religious stripping to purge spirit, hope, faith, inspiration . .
- mandatory enslavement to “the machine” (wait, this too may already . ).
Oh, what ever happened to the good ol days of fly-fishing, scouting, backpacking, ball tossing, wrestling, sport shooting, camp building, . . .
Well, that departed with the failings of freewill, freethinking, freesinging, freeexpression, freedom and all collectively with the crumbing of more progressive parenthood.
For sure, we have finally liberated ourselves into the progressive posturing of the PC academy.
- just adad
2 Kevin Merck // Nov 20, 2006 at 9:49 pm
This looks like a “kinder gentler†approach to the extortion of child support from the “non-residential parentâ€. Changing the terminology to reflect a more “politically correct†approach, while still maintaining the status quo, is hardly a solution to the overall problem of gender bias in family court matters. Giving the impression of a more “level playing field†for the added reward of better “child support compliance†is not a solution at all.
50/50 custody with the courts completely out of the child support racket needs to happen to level the playing field. The criminals responsible for this gender bias need to be held accountable for their actions. This has gone too far for mere reform. The people responsible for this injustice need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This needs to happen to restore a measure of credibility to a judicial system that is an embarrassment to the free world and our legacy. We need to strictly minimize the role courts play in our lives. There are far too many parasites living on the blood of our citizens. I think the Founding Fathers would agree.
Kevin Merck
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industriousâ€.
Thomas Jefferson
You must log in to post a comment.